A resolution inspired by Western nations critical of civilian killings in politically-beleaguered Syria is facing threats from two veto-wielding permanent members of the Security Council: Russia and China.

If and when the resolution is adopted by the 15-member Council, perhaps next week, it will be diluted to avoid the customary call for economic or military sanctions against a country accused of "ruthlessly crushing" civilian protests.

"It is pretty obvious the Russians and the Chinese are protecting their own economic and military interests in Syria," an Asian diplomat told IPS, "just as Western nations traditionally continue to protect Israel from any form of sanctions at all."

A country with vibrant political, economic and military ties to both Russia and China, Syria depends heavily on the two countries for arms currently used against demonstrators in the three-month-old revolt against the government of President Bashar al-Assad.

Dan Darling, Europe and Middle East Military Markets Analyst at the U.S.-based Forecast International, told IPS most of Syria’s economic ties are primarily with its regional neighbors such as Saudi Arabia and Turkey.

But its military relationships with Russia and China are strong – particularly with Russia, he added.

He said relations between the two date back to the former Soviet Union and the current president’s father, Hafiz al-Assad. During the three decades under Hafiz al-Assad’s rule, the Soviet Union (and later Russia) delivered some 25 billion dollars in arms to Damascus.

This has resulted in a Syrian military laden with largely Soviet- and Russian-legacy materiel which continues to be serviced, maintained and refurbished by the Russians in lucrative multi-billion-dollar arms deals.

Syria’s traditional arms suppliers also include China, the Czech Republic, Ukraine and North Korea.

Expressing his country’s opposition to the resolution, Russian Ambassador Vitaly Churkin told reporters, "We are not persuaded (the resolution) can help establish dialogue and reach a political settlement."

"We’re concerned it will have the opposite effect," he said.

The resolution, which has been "watered down" to avoid vetoes from Russia and China, is sponsored by Britain and co-sponsored by France, Germany and Portugal.

Britain is confident it can garner the nine votes needed to adopt the resolution – provided there are no vetoes.

The United States is expected to support the resolution which condemns the "systematic violation of human rights, including killings, arbitrary detentions, disappearances and torture of peaceful demonstrators".

According to a draft currently in circulation, the resolution also calls on the Syrian government to "immediately lift the siege of affected towns" and allow "immediate, unfettered and sustained access for international human rights monitors and humanitarian agencies and workers."

U.N. Commissioner for Human Rights Navi Pillay said Thursday "it is utterly deplorable for any government to attempt to bludgeon its population into submission, using tanks, artillery and snipers"

"I urge the government (of Syria) to halt this assault on its own people’s most fundamental human rights," she said in a statement released here.

Pillay also pointed out that several non-governmental organizations (NGOs) and others are now reporting that the number of men, women and children killed, since the protests began in March, has exceeded 1,100, with up to 10,000 or more detained.

She called on the government to respond to her repeated requests to allow a fact-finding mission to visit the country.

Both Russia and China also fear that a strong yet ambiguous Security Council resolution on Syria would provide a mandate for Western powers to misinterpret it and launch military strikes – as it did with Libya.

At a special session in April, the 47-member U.N. Human Rights Council (HRC) authorized a fact-finding mission to Syria to investigate alleged violations of international human rights law.

But Syria has refused access to the country by the U.N. mission.

The HRC resolution was supported by 26 countries and opposed by nine, including China and Russia.

"So far we have not received any official reply from Syria either positive or negative," Pillay said Thursday.

Meanwhile, Darling of Forecast International told IPS that Syria has been virtually inundated with Russian weapons over the last three decades.

The Russians signed a 25-year-old Treaty of Friendship and Cooperation with Syria going back to October 1970.

At one time, the Russians had about 3,000-4,000 military advisers stationed in Syria, according to news reports.

Darling said that in January 2005 the Kremlin forgave some 9.8 billion dollars of Damascus’s 13.4-billion-dollar Soviet-era debt, thus paving the way for new arms agreements, many of which included upgrades to platforms already in Syrian service such as its MiG-21, – 23 and -29 squadrons.

Some of the more recent Russian sales to Syria include the 96K6 Pantsir-S1E (NATO designation: SA-19 Grison) self-propelled, short- range gun and missile air-defense system, the Buk-2M Ural (SA-17 Grizzly) medium-range theater-defense missile system, plus 10-20 new MiG-29SMT Fulcrum combat aircraft (signed in 2007), with another deal for four MiG-31Eh Foxhounds still under negotiation.

Russia is also reportedly creating a naval base at the Syrian port of Tartus, and possibly another at Latakia, he said.

China’s military trade with Syria is not as voluminous as Russia’s, said Darling, but it does provide Damascus with missiles and missile technology.

From 2002 through 2009, Russia signed 5.8 billion dollars worth of arms agreements with Syria, and with China worth 800 million dollars.

However, Chinese military sales with Syria tripled from 2006 through 2009 from the preceding four-year period.

The Syrian military is broadly outfitted with older, heavy Soviet- style weaponry that may be effective in intimidating civilian populations, but easy prey against more modern foes such as Israeli jets.

The US is now actively involved in five wars (Afghanistan, Pakistan, Iraq, Libya, Yemen) and is clearly looking for new wars against Syria, and then Iran. But do not think that Russia and China will hold the line on this issue. If they wanted to stuff the resolution, all they would have to do is add Bahrain and Israel to it. But this they refuse to do. They will soon push Syria under the bus. They just want to negotiate some goodies first.

Russia fully understands that the USA has been building a system of forts around the former soviet union. They destroyed the george israel military fort and that should have been a wake up to the fact that they have had enough. China knows what is going on and they are not happy that they lost billions in Libya when the USA and nato aka old colonial powers attacked libya. I suspect you will see china and russia do their own fort building. I would not feel good about the matter if I lived in Israel. I think the russian and china will go after Israel as the source of land base military operations for the United States. The USA has Iraq but I suspect that war is long from being solved. Israel is the only place were the USA can operate without being attacked at least if you not on a navy ship like the USS Liberty.

Deen’s story about the nefarious goals of Russia and China in opposing outside intervention in Syria should get an award from neocons and foreign policy decision makers that have directed American policy in the last twenty years. What Deen omissions–the Arab-Israeli confrontation, the Palestinian component in Middle Eastern affairs, the mixed relationships that Syria has had with the US and EU, the multi-billion dollar aid/military package that the US has provided Israel that insures its military superiority vis-a-vis the Arabs and continued suppression of Palestinian nationalism, etc–literally fill books. America’s intervention and regime change in western and central Asia in the last ten years certainly must be encouraging to Deen. Iraq no longer exists as a unified state, but a patchwork of sectarian and ethnic areas that has killed and wounded far more Iraqis than Saddam ever did. Eight years into the war and American soldiers are still in occupation of the country. Afghanistan shines to the world what US and NATO forces can do with aerial bombings and house invasions. The Afghan people have a lot to be thankful for–death and destruction by “well-intentioned” invaders who apologize whenever there is collateral damage. But if you think that uniformed soldiers is not enough, how about the thousands of mercenaries that roam “Iraq” and Afghanistan? What wonderful shooting sprees they have given to those people. Setting aside our game winning clandestine wars in Pakistan and Yemen, the highlight of foreign intervention surely is Libya. Making sure we do not damage any oil installations, the US and EU are backing “freedom-loving (?)” Libyans from one region to war against the evils of Gaddafi and people from another region. The horror of 1500 dead Syrians (does that include the deaths of government forces?) pales in comparison to the body count in Libya. But perhaps the most disturbing thing about Deen’s story is his dismissal of Russia’s and China’s reason for opposing the UN resolution (so much like the 2003 fig leaf of Iraq)–”We are not persuaded (the resolution) can help establish dialogue and reach a political settlement.” Just how will the UN bring about talks between Bashar Assad and the demonstrators? If the internet directors halt sending their minions into the jaws of death, what happens to all the news coverage given to the dead and wounded. People have a short attention span, and only mayhem keeps them interested. The UN resolution does absolutely nothing to bring about a political settlement, but it does lay the ground work for those who seek another excuse to send in their troops for “the betterment of mankind.” The 1500 dead that took three and half months to reach will be but a week’s worth of causalities when the US and EU step in.

Spot on. You can also look at the current situation with Libya in this light. Gaddafi tried to play all sides off against each other (Chinese and Russian economic projects, US and European banks), the problem with this course of action is that you don't have anyone in your corner if the SHTF. NATO and the US has in-effect done the work of China and Russia by forcing a "Who's side are you on?" moment.

Shield Syria? As we speak, US military is striking places in South of Yemen, where the opponents of Saleh have managed to take over their townships and villages. This is the name of "fighting Al-Qaeda"!!! Since Russia and China do not have their military or any of their allies trying to shape the uprising in Arab world, they can propose a resolution condemning US for military strikes to crush uprising in Yemen, and Saudi Arabia for crushing uprising in Bahrain. These are two very brutal actions, and thousands of dead and thousands of missing are the testimony to US and Saudi military involvement. The only reason to attack Yemen's south is to destroy Saleh's most sucessful opposition. People in the South have taken over smaller towns and villages by pushing Saleh's forces out. Little by little, he is loosing control of the country that he forcibly grabbed and annexed to Yemen. This is why "Al-Qaeda" is discovered there, so that killing protestors can be legitimized. The title of article should be "China and Russia shielding US/Saudi Arabia from condemnation in UN SC for actions in Yemen and Bahrain.

The fate of Libya, Syria and Iran are obviously part of a bigger picture. It seems that in the world today there are three major players – America, China and Russia. Smaller countries are merely pawns.
It seems also that there is a major build-up for war. As wars can only be fought by two sides a game of musical chairs is going on. America never forgets an enemy and recent military campaigns along with the positioning of military hardware makes it reasonable to assume that America and Russia will be on opposite sides. Also America is addicted to oil which it does not believe in paying for and Ruusia has oil.
Whose side will China be on or will it be allowed to sit on the fence and clean up the spoils when the Americans and Russians have worn themselve out like the Americans did to Europe after the last World War? I cannot see the Americans and the Russian falling for that one unless the Americans foolishly believe that they can pay off their debts to China and loot Russian resources at one stroke.